If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I don't the time right now to do much research, but here are a couple of things I saw that raised a question in my mind.

New Communities, Inc., a farming cooporative that Sherrod and her husband had been a part of was awarded $13,000,000 as a part of the law suit settlement. Sherod and her husband received $300k in damages for the loss of their land and “pain and suffering.” The also got $1.5 mil. in debt forgiveness. This was in 2009, not in 2010 after the whole USDA incident.

You believe $1,800,000 is reasonable? They apparently failed & the taxpayers of this country made them whole.

When presented with Breitbart’s allegations, a USDA spokesman issued the following response:

“These accusations are nothing more than an attempt to derail an effort to provide long-overdue compensation to thousands of farmers who were discriminated against over several decades. Current census numbers on black farmers are not the proper guide for the number of claimants, and certainly no basis for allegations of fraud. Out of the 15,000 claims processed under Pigford I, the FBI determined that only 3 claims were fraudulent, and this Administration is committed to ensuring that the new claims process has integrity and provides justice to those who have suffered discrimination.

Only about 63% of those claims were approved, even using the less-stringent Track A burden of proof.

I’m not going to debate the merits of the lawsuit. That has been done on this forum before. My original point was there were inaccuracies and distortions in the article, as there are with most information connected with Andrew Breitbart. You challenged that by saying, “Ya gotta do better than that - NR is highly respected.” So, I gave you what you asked for. The NR may be highly respected, but they aren’t very reliable.

Originally Posted by Marvin S

You believe $1,800,000 is reasonable? They apparently failed & the taxpayers of this country made them whole.

By the USDA’s admission, they lost their land and their livelihood due to unfair USDA loan practices. Certainly, people have won much larger settlements for losing far less. I don’t know how much income they lost or the value of their land. Perhaps, the settlement wasn’t high enough.

Originally Posted by Marvin S

Would you expect someone from the USDA to publicly pronounce that the POTUS was truly what many believe him to be? I don't believe you to be that naive.

So, are you accusing the USDA and the FBI of being complicit in the fraud? That would be a pretty strong accusation. Any proof?

Originally Posted by Marvin S

But it's a long way from 2,500 max whuich was the intent of the original legislation, which apparently was circumvented by the bureaucracy. Is this why Espy was criminally indicted?

The 2,500 was only an estimate of how many farmers might be eligible. It was not a capped maximum. See what I mean about how they distort the facts?

Espy had nothing to do with this case. If anything, he was in charge at the time some of the discriminatory loan practices were taking place. Obviously, prison is where he should be for more reasons than what he was convicted for.

I find it interesting that you are so concerned with the payout of the settlement, but not at all concerned with what caused the lawsuit to be filed in the first place. If there hadn’t been discriminatory lending practices, there would have never been a law suit, and no settlement. So, let’s put the blame where it belongs.

Originally Posted by Marvin S

I believe racism to be a moot issue & only useful for accusations to gain ground that an intelligent discussion will not gain. The intelligent discussion showing the point to be indefensible.

I guess this law suit, admission of guilt by the USDA, and the settlement disproves that argument.

I’m not going to debate the merits of the lawsuit. That has been done on this forum before. My original point was there were inaccuracies and distortions in the article, as there are with most information connected with Andrew Breitbart. You challenged that by saying, “Ya gotta do better than that - NR is highly respected.” So, I gave you what you asked for. The NR may be highly respected, but they aren’t very reliable.

Only your sources are reliable !!!

By the USDA’s admission, they lost their land and their livelihood due to unfair USDA loan practices. Certainly, people have won much larger settlements for losing far less. I don’t know how much income they lost or the value of their land. Perhaps, the settlement wasn’t high enough.

Anyone with supposed assets of that magnitude unable to figure out what is important, deserves the consequences!!!!!

So, are you accusing the USDA and the FBI of being complicit in the fraud? That would be a pretty strong accusation. Any proof?

No, nor am I willing to believe they weren't lying through their teeth.

The 2,500 was only an estimate of how many farmers might be eligible. It was not a capped maximum. See what I mean about how they distort the facts?

Actually I believe you to be the one being disingenuous on this subject.

Espy had nothing to do with this case. If anything, he was in charge at the time some of the discriminatory loan practices were taking place. Obviously, prison is where he should be for more reasons than what he was convicted for.

Someone who looks like you not taking care of those who look like you, what's going on?

I find it interesting that you are so concerned with the payout of the settlement, but not at all concerned with what caused the lawsuit to be filed in the first place. If there hadn’t been discriminatory lending practices, there would have never been a law suit, and no settlement. So, let’s put the blame where it belongs.

I don't believe there should have been lending in the 1st place. But as there was I never said Pigford did not have a legitimate case. But a considerable portion of farming is being a good businessman, which apparnetly many in on this scam failed to realized. Other than their ability to farm the taxpayers.

I guess this law suit, admission of guilt by the USDA, and the settlement disproves that argument.

It proves little except how careless some can be with others money & how nincompoops in charge are still that.

But the issue you were still pounding is Haley Barbour & his associations, while you are more than willing to rub elbows with people who engage in fraudulent practices, because they look like you. I believe you to be hypocritical on the subject & your postings have proven that .

Sherod and her husband received $300k in damages for the loss of their land and “pain and suffering.” The also got $1.5 mil. in debt forgiveness. This was in 2009, not in 2010 after the whole USDA incident.

In spite of the lending discrimination, they had received $1.5 million in loans? from a govt loan program?

And Shirley did find another livelihood that seems to have served her well. Maybe she just wasn't cut out to be a farmer?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.